Help
Sign In
leadership
November 2009 
Pedder Bay Trial - the unravelling of complex issues
Terrill
Photo - travel trailer home with addition and separate studio on two RV sites with a "grandfather clause". Yikes! Yes this is one of the "manufactured home sites" that received an end of tenancy notice in Pedder Bay. What legislation and laws might apply to this situation?
By the end of today we are more than half way through telling the courts about what we (the residents) were told when we bought our homes, What we understood we were buying, what we understood was our tenancy agreement to rent the land, and what the impact would be if we were to lose our homes. There is a weariness that has slipped into the creases on the faces of those in attendance. It would be hard to contest the impact of this situation on the homeowners. For those who still have mortgages, loss of their homes would make bankruptcy inevitable. This will be particularly difficult for those who are retired or close to retiring.
Oak Bay Marina Ltd did not include any ability for them to terminate the rental agreement except for a list of bad behaviours (no loud parties, dogs off leash, clothes lines and such). There was no mention, either orally or in writing, about the Residential Tenancy Act or the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act by Oak Bay Marina Ltd when negotiating the rental agreements. However, the legislation did not require that the terms of the Act be included in rental agreements until 2004. Only six out of the 25 homeowners bought their homes after 2004. Some homeowners have been at Pedder Bay for more than 30 years. Now, Oak Bay Marina Ltd wants to give notice under Provincial legislation that was never part of their discussion with homeowners. The legislation has a clause that says it applies whether or not either party knew that Act existed, or whether it applied to their situation. The Act makes no mention of nor does it provide require compensation to be given to the homeowner if the manufactured home can no longer be moved. Nor does it make any mention of what should happen where additions and outbuilding have been added, or where gardens, fish ponds, shrubs or outbuildings have been added to the site.
How will the court assign blame or accountability in this situation? Is the homeowner accountable for the loss because it is a “buyer beware” culture? Will the landowner be accountable because he failed to warn the homeowner when they entered into the rental agreement that the landowner could end the tenancy - based on other conditions not included in the tenancy agreement? Is it the ill-thought-out and inadequate legislation that is the issue? Or is the notice even valid under section 42 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act?
For now it might be prudent to review the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act in British Columbia, Canada. In particular section 42 is important. The link to this act is http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/M/02077_01.htm
The second document to review is the regulations to this act at http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/M/481_2003.htm
If you have comments, I would love to hear from you! Please email me at tawelch@shaw.ca or reply to this Blog entry.
All the best!
Terrill Welch
Spokes person and resident
on behalf of Pedder Bay Residents
Donations can be made by paypal at www.pedderbay.ca
Or by cheque or money order to the Pedder Bay Residents Society.
Our community address is:
Pedder Bay Residents Society
#1 - 925 Pedder Bay Drive
Victoria, BC, Canada
V9C 4H1
Thank you for your support!
Access: Public
I apologize for not commenting sooner Terrill..I got here about 3 weeks ago and started work right away, and still do not have a place to live, so am in my RV…if anyone knows how living in a temporary place is…i do.
this whole thing you are dealing with is horrible! The idea they can ask you to move for no good reason, people who have been there for many years and have made these places not temporary living arrangements, but their homes!
I hope the government will stick by you in this mess. I am sending my best to you in this fight and all your residents. i am sorry you are dealing with this whole thing and hope it is resolved in your favor ASAP.
Blessings,
Aley
Hi Aley,
Thanks for your words of support! Unfortunately, our Provincial legislation is extremely inadequate. It requires that the landlord give 12 months pad space on or before the end of 12 months notice to vacate. We are having to challenge the notice in Supreme Court in order to see if there is some way of recognizing that our homes are not movable due to age and improvements. If the notices to vacate are upheld by the courts, 25 homes will be lost and our community will disappear. Rest assured we are doing our best to get a favourable resolution to this situation! But a word of advice - don't let your RV become affixed - keep them wheels turning or you may find some day that your modest home will have to be destroyed or left behind for the landlord.
Thanks again for your support! It is nice to know there are lovely people like you out there thinking about us - and welcome to the west coast!
with warmth
Terrill
At one point the Defendant's lawyer said to a resident something like “I am not going to challenge the impact that losing your home will have on you. We all know this is going to be hard for you. I just want to ask you some legal questions.” The resident had just explained that if she lost her home that it had taken her seventeen years to aquire, she would lose her mother inheritance that she used to pay out he mortgage a couple of years previous. She would lose the safe supportive community that her and her daughter were part of. She explained that she didn't know where she could afford to live with her teenage daughter, the family dog, a lizard and two birds. The legal questions were about points of law, and trick questions about what she understood particular words meant in the rental agreement. The fact that this resident was about to lose her secure housing, her community and as a single parent didn't know how she was going to continue to provide a home was lost on discussing whether she understood that the words (in brackets) in the first paragraph of the rental agreement meant she was to pay her rent on the first of every month or if she understood that it was a month to month tenancy. I cried then and I cry now at how outlandish our systems these circumstances. Ordinary people living ordinary lives believed the park manager when he assured them that the park would be there for many years to come.
One of the things that I believe we have lost in the modern world is the feeling of honesty, directness, goodwill, and good faith in our agreements and important arrangements. There was a time, not so long ago, when agreements were made with a handshake. What did that mean? I think it meant that apart from any papers or processes, the people involved said to each other “I trust that your word is honest and that as one human being to another we are not trying to take advantage of each other.” The handshake was a human touch, a connection that both parties depended on more than any paper, because no matter how delicately phrased or how many dozens, hundreds or even thousands of words are printed and signed off, they can still be misunderstood, or even twisted. In contrast, sometimes I know there was no exchange of paper at all., just the handshake.
How the process has changed. The phrase “due dilligence” and the idea of “buyer beware” can be taken to mean that there is no responsibility on either side when an agreement is made – no responsibility to make things clear, or to assure that there is understanding, or that fairness will prevail. When that agreement is something as important as your home, the results of this modern process can be incredibly destructive.
I sincerely hope that this trial will give all of the residents fairness, as well as the landowner.
Terrill, I continue my prayers for the highest possible outcome for ALL residents of your community. That being said, my two recent experiences with the court system have dramatically eroded my confidence in a system that seems to be designed to protect the powerful when it comes to land issues. I sat in on Betty Krawczyk's trial and witnessed a manipulation of legislation that was infuriating.
Who wins in these situations? Certainly the lawyers, who benefit from long drawn out trials dissecting the confusing wording of documents that they and their kind drafted to confuse the 'ordinary' people.